I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. , If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics). This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]
bicyclemark
As an observer and pretend participant of many of the blogs in question, my complaint (privately until now) has always been this Scandinavian Ivory Tower y’all seemed to have (or have had). Always an odd feeling of the toddler trying to sit at the adult table from my end. Wait.. maybe I am practically a toddler. Ah well.
Jill
Really? Well in that case, we should be applauding the dissolving of a cluster rather than lamenting it… At the same time as, well, ya know, friends are good to have, good friends, you know?
bicyclemark
Most definately jill… and for that reason maybe the real question is – what was the goal of the blog.. or the cluster.. if it was to be used for the purposes of this cluster… then me or anyone else not being fully included shouldn’t be a concern. On the other hand, if the blog was also meant to welcome outsiders and new bloggers, then this cluster may not have been very enabling towards that goal. Whew.. I was able to tame that thought into words.
Scott
Wasn’t the “Scandinavian-flavored” cluster idea imposed from the very beginning? The last time I checked, all of the weblogs concerned are published on the (singular, global, WWW) internet, and not on an intranet. Just because one blogger identifies a group of blogs, written by other bloggers who have happened to write about similar topics in some of their posts, and who have happened to comment on each other’s blogs, as a “cluster” does not make it so. This seems to me to be more an issue of categorization from the outside than anything that occurred to the blogs or bloggers themselves. These blogs have been functioning in an open system from the very beginning, and the content of each blog has been dependent on the activities of the individual blogger, not on some pseudoscientific formulation of a cluster. We can impose all the formulations we want, but individual blogs are written by individual bloggers. What does something “Scandinavian-flavored” taste like, anyway? Ligonberries?
bicyclemark
Yum. But what I was pointing out, from my own experiences mostly, is that despite it’s openess… it is still possible for a blog (or blogger) engaged in a dialogue with a select group of other blogs, to create a sort-of intranet, where those outside the circle can comment all they want, but won’t necessarily be engaged or allowed entry into this group. It could be open, but still not really open.
Jill
What was the purpose of starting this blog, other blogs in this “cluster”, if cluster it ever was? Personal satisfaction for the individual blogger, of course, at least, that’s my main reason for blogging. Sure, there are additional benefits, and I do enjoy the social and professional connections that evolve through blogging.
When I use blogs in teaching it’s really important that I blog in way that fosters community between the students, helps the shy ones in and gently opens up to the world, inviting the world in and helping students make their own connections to the world. I’m responsible for the growth of that community.
This blog? No, I don’t feel any obligations to do anything in particular with it. In fact, if I did I bet I’d start hating it and quit.
Torill’s response to all this is perfect.
jill/txt » inscribe yourself in either space
[…] . Here it is. Is my weblog private or public? Is a blogger responsible for a community or beholden to none other than herself? Is a blog a garden for resting, as Tom Matrullo suggested, […]